Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of file hosting services

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Big Dom 19:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of file hosting services

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are a lot of these "comparison of..." articles, but I think they are a shopping guide for which service to use. The list will also never be complete, as new sites are popping up all the time. Also, several entries are redlinks or external links. A category should be used, and there already is one. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 22:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a deletion rationale here. Many of these comparison articles have survived AFDs, so there is no consensus that the very format is inappropriate on Wikipedia. It is irrelevant that the list will never be complete; most lists on Wikipedia do not purport to be complete, but rather just list items that meet article inclusion criteria. New sites, if notable, can obviously be added to this comparison article by any editor, because that's rather what Wikipedia is about. Most entries in this list are bluelinks, and we don't delete a list of notable entries just because some nonnotable ones may have snuck in. As for the redlinks or external links, they can be removed (again, by any editor) if they do not merit articles or have another compelling reason to be on the list. We don't delete articles for content that can be fixed (again, by any editor). postdlf (talk) 22:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-I too don't follow the nominators rationale. There are plenty of incomplete comparison lists which are here in the Category:Software_comparisons and Category:Online_services_comparisons. There's also a template {{Dynamic list}} for incomplete lists. Please read Wikipedia:WikiProject_Lists#Incomplete_lists. As for the article, the red links seem to be notable sites...though the list should probably be broken into a free/pay parts.Smallman12q (talk) 14:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-category wouldn't work because this list has good summary comparison information, while a category would make you read every article. Ma^t_chups 03:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-this site has a fairly good overview and is seems to be used by a lot of people. Why delete a good evaluation reference. It would take hours to get this comparement information from somewhere else. BenMoll (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Per above clauses and reasonings. This comparison should stay, although it may need some refactoring or cleaning. --Rev L. Snowfox (talk) 09:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.